Featured Authors

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrews.

Get Involved

Reflections on our Interview with Bill Nye

Yesterday our blog featured an interview with popular author and scientist Bill Nye. The interview was published on the one-year anniversary of Nye’s well-publicized debate with Ken Ham, which we commented on extensively last year. We have had several online exchanges with Ken Ham since then, but no communication with Bill Nye. We approached Nye and he agreed to an interview with our content editor, Brad Kramer, about his recent book. The email interview had two rounds: an initial set of four questions, then a set of followup questions (interweaved throughout the piece) to interact with his responses to the first round.

The debate last year was viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. Unfortunately, it reinforced the idea that science and biblical faith are at odds. As I wrote before the debate, we at BioLogos maintain that you don’t have to choose. You don’t have to give up Christian faith in order to accept the best, most rigorous science. We agree with what Bill Nye says about the science of evolution and the age of the earth. Dates based on nuclear decay, fossils, genetics, and other scientific evidences make a compelling case that all life on earth is related and developed over a very long time through natural processes. But we’re also brothers and sisters in Christ with Ken Ham and other creationists. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins and rose from the dead, and that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. (Read more of what we believe.)

Nye has done great work over the decades as a science educator, inspiring millions of children to love science. We share that love of science and, like Nye, the universe fills us with wonder. In the last year however, Nye has been moving beyond celebrating science itself into troubling rhetoric against the Bible and Christian beliefs. And he is rapidly becoming a major voice in the national science/faith discussion.

In the interview, Nye claims to only be arguing against the view that the earth is only 6000 years old, and not saying anything about religion or Christianity. We’re thrilled to hear him say, “your community and mine can live and work together without conflict.” Yet the back cover of his book is filled with endorsements from outspoken atheists, and the book seems to expand the word “creationist” to refer negatively to anyone (especially Christians) who thinks nature is the product of Divine craftsmanship. In the interview, Nye reduces religion to “a strong sense of community and mutual support.” He sees science as a replacement for any sort of traditional religious belief, and even as a more satisfactory way to answer questions than religion, including the largest questions of the meaning of life.

Although Nye may not accept religion for himself, I want to emphasize that accepting the findings of science does not require rejecting Christianity. Christianity and science are complementary, not competing sources of truth. Many great scientists of the past and present were and are people of deep Christian faith, like Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, and Francis Collins. In our view, science is a powerful tool for answering questions about the physical world, and shows us the amazing “how and when” of God’s work in creating all life. But science is not equipped to answer questions about meaning, purpose, love, and God, and we look to the Bible for the “who and why.” When we ponder the natural world through the lens of biblical faith, the signs of a divine plan and intention in the created order are unmistakable. The meaning of life, then, comes from our Christian faith: loving the God who forgave our sins, loving others, and being good stewards of the planet God asked us to care for. Thus, at BioLogos, we do call ourselves “creationists” because we affirm God as the creator of the cosmos. We add the adjective “evolutionary” (in contrast to “young earth”) to signify the means we think God used to bring about life.

Of course, Ken Ham and Bill Nye are not the only voices BioLogos is engaging. Just in the last three months, BioLogos has been reaching both the church and the public square through the release of Jonathan Hill’s National Study of Religion and Human Origins which was covered in The Atlantic, Slate, and Relevant. Board chair Jeff Hardin was featured in both Slate and The Christian Post. We are also continuing our long term dialogue with Christians who disagree with us about evolution, including an exchange with Southern Baptist leaders and the Reasons to Believe organization at the 2014 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.

If you’d like to learn more about evolutionary creation, browse our Common Questions page. You may also want to read the stories of scientists who came to faith in Christ, like Sy and Natasha. If you are interested in talking more with someone about what it means to follow Christ, just write to us at info@biologos.org.

About the Author

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Gifted in interpreting complex scientific topics for lay audiences, Dr. Haarsma often speaks to churches, colleges, and schools about the relationships between science and Christian faith. She is author (along with her husband Loren Haarsma) of Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (2011, 2007), a book presenting the agreements and disagreements of Christians regarding the history of life and the universe. Haarsma is an experienced research scientist, with several publications in the Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology.

"What kind of evidence would somebody need to have in order to be rationally compelled to say that an event was a miracle? That person would have to know that this event could not possibly be explained by future science. But not only is such a belief unwarranted, it’s also bad for future science to believe it."

These provocative words are written by Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson (a Christian), in an article that itself provoked some good discussion when we posted it last week.

Check out the full article (link in comments), and then respond to the quote above. Does calling something a "miracle" put it in danger of being debunked by future scientific advances? Is there a different way of thinking about the concept of a miracle, that might satisfy his concerns? Feel free to discuss below. ... See moreSee less

Hard for me to see that the Incarnation is not a miracle. For others , God could be working on a quantum level?? But does the latter fall into”God of the Gaps?”

5 hours ago · 1

Amen🌀 Jesus doesn't care about Alabama Crimson Tide 🏈 football. Instead, He loves 🌀 Spring and the start of ⚾ baseball season. That's why He started His own story, "In the Big inning..." Just watch 🌀 His wind-up! You need to start reading your 📖 Bible!

3 hours ago

One thing for sure, it is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

7 hours ago · 2

Great article. In answer to you question about a different way of thinking about miracles that would "satisfy his concern", to me it would make sense to explain a miracle in terms of something that everyone (religious and non-religious alike) would have no explanation for, given our current understanding of science.

Science will never describe the full expanse of reality. Science is not geared to that end. This is basic knowledge.
Reason is the handmaiden of faith because faith takes us where reason cannot go. As such, the only thing that will ever describe the fill expanse of reality is faith supernaturally given by God, i.e. God graciously enlightening the intellect. Reason gives way to faith because reason is limited in its capacity to describe reality.
This is not to say reason is not essential. It is the handmaiden of faith because it is a true and good servant to faith. As such faith and reason never contradict, but faith does transcend reason.

10 hours ago · 5

I'm tired of these types of questions constantly being proposed. It was not a scientist who discovered that dead human beings do not rise from the dead (which is different than Jesus resurrection) it was simple human experience. Therefore, the question is rather silly to ask. My first reply is to ask: who cares if Jesus resurrection contradicts science? My second reply is to make the observation that this question is phrased in such a way that science is presupposed as the final arbiter of truth claims like the resurrection of Jesus. Thirdly, how exactly could scientists study the resurrection of Jesus? Scripture tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead. Can science study this claim? Fourth, it would be one thing to subject the resurrection to some sort of scientific investigation ( I know not what or how) and a completely different thing to study what the resurrection of Jesus means for me or you personally. It seems Biologos is in need of some good theologians and philosophers to add to this conversation. Finally, this question smacks of a form of Evidentialism that would make faith subject to the vagarities of evidence. In the end I have to affirm that it matters little to me if the resurrection of Jesus did contradict science. On another note, one could ask: whose "science" and which scientists?

3 hours ago · 1

Exactly so.

11 hours ago · 1

Mmmmmm, I would say that a resurrection is contradictory to observed evidence, but that's fine. A God that is truly supernatural would act supernaturally at times. Although, I suppose God could whip up a truly natural Star Trek hypospray to overcome the decay process and relaunch the body's systems.